Abstract:
The aim of this study is to posit the theory that it will be more beneficial to, rather use a
private company instead of a Communal Property Association (CPA) to promote and
develop the property interests of previous disadvantaged rural communities.
Maladministration, poor governance, misappropriation of funds and property together
with diverging interests give rise to disputes and internal conflict. The research will
include a literature study of relevant textbooks, case law, law journals, legislation and
discussion documents. Constitutional development in property law opened the door for
a different approach in the application of property rights and rights relating to property,
which in return precedes to a better understanding of communal rights and the
enforcement of traditional values in a democratic society. Despite these constitutional
developments, the maladministration, poor governance and misappropriation of funds
and property by Communal Property Association executive committees caused discontent
amongst community members, necessitating the examining of the use of a private
company to promote and develop the property interests of rural communities, as an
alternative institution to enhance democracy and the protection of human rights in
communal context. The development of, either proper legislation to ensure compliance
with the principles of good governance, accountability and transparency or the use of an
alternative institution, which is already required by law to comply with the said principles,
to manage the affairs of a Communal Property Association, should resolve these
problems. The study is primarily a critical analysis and comparative study on the relevant
provisions of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 in relation to the provisions of the Communal
Property Associations Act 28 of 1996 to establish whether the use of a private company
can resolve the problems currently experienced by Communal Property Associations.
